Can Politics Get Any More Indecent?

Recently, four US soldiers were killed in Niger. President Trump's telephone call to the widow of Army Sgt. La David Johnson has needlessly turned into a political controversy. It would appear that Florida Representative Frederica Wilson (a Democrat) was determined to cause this dust up in order to make Trump look bad. But, to any right thinking person she is the one who looks petty and spiteful.

As the story goes, Rep. Wilson was apparently in the car with Sgt. Johnson's widow when the call came in from the President and was on the car's Bluetooth, enabling the Congresswoman to listen in. It seems to me, that as a matter of common courtesy, when a call comes in with others listening, especially a member of Congress, from the President of the United States no less, the first thing that Congresswoman ought to have done was identify herself as being present. Why did she not do so?

Then, we are told that Trump said to the widow that the Sgt. "Knew what he signed up for." And? I can draw no conclusions from that. If Trump said in an oft-handed way, "well, (like "too bad") but he knew what he signed up for," that's one thing. If, however, he said that the Sgt. was doing what he wanted - serving this country - notwithstanding that "he knew what he signed up for," that is quite another thing. And if Trump stumbled over his words during such a difficult call, so what? Who might not stumble?

Brian Fallon, a former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton went after General John Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff and himself a Gold Star Dad, because Kelly defended Trump regarding the call. Fallon: "Kelly isn't just an enabler of Trump. He's a believer in him. That makes him as odious as the rest. Don't be distracted by the uniform." The Congresswoman later threw this accusation, saying the "White House itself is full of white supremacists."

This has got to stop! Clearly, the politicians have no interest in leading the way. Therefore, individual Americans - you and I - need to lead the way. If we are unable to address each other with even a modicum of respect, then I really do not know what country we have left.

The Democrats Unending Fascination With Identity Politics

I know. Republicans are racists. I hear it all the time from the Left. So why is it that the Democrats and the Left seem to be obsessed with the issue of race? Of course, the same applies to sex and all those other categories in Hillary's "basket of deplorables."

First, Michelle Obama told us that "any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice." Because women are not able to decide for themselves which candidate best represents their values? So, not having that capability, women need to just automatically vote for the female candidate? Wow!

Now, the former First Lady (and future Presidential candidate?) tells us what she observed at the State of the Union address: "On one side of the room, it's literally gray and white. On the other side of the room, there are yellows and blues and whites and greens. (Yellows? Greens? Really?) Physically, there's a difference in color, in the tone. Because one side - all men, all white. On the other side - some women, some people of color." Upon viewing this, Mrs. Obama thought: "No wonder people don't trust politics."

Then, this very dangerous comment: "Until we are ready to fight for that - which means some people have to be willing to give up their seats to make room, or you need to be ready to add more seats - I think we're going to continue to struggle." Another wowser! Michelle Obama is talking racial quotas. Historically, quotas were used to limit the access of minorities to certain institutions. Does the former First Lady not know this?

These comments bring to mind some earlier comments by Democrats. Recall Madeleine Albright, campaigning for Hillary Clinton, and saying "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." And Harry Reid, while Senate Majority Leader, asserting "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." And, of course, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as head of the DNC: "There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish community."

Okay, let me concede that the white supremacist, Richard Spencer, is also (not surprisingly, he's a white supremacist) prone to identity politics: "You are going to have to get used to white identity." Except, the Democrats I mentioned above are all mainstream Democrats, some having served as leaders in their party. Spencer does not enjoy the support of the vast majority of Republicans. For Leftists who assert that he does, to what office has he been able to get elected? On the other hand, how many times was Robert Byrd elected and reelected to Congress? (He was 6 years in the House and 51 years in the Senate.)

Mia Love is a black, female Republican member of the House from Utah. Love, in reply to Michelle Obama, said this: "Sadly, this is identity politics. I don't know if she noticed, but I am not white and I am not a male...This is absolutely divisive language. It's not language that unifies us as Americans." Amen to that. As Dennis Prager likes to point out, he has repeatedly asked conservative audiences which make-up of the Supreme Court would they prefer: nine white heterosexual males who are all left-wing, or nine black lesbian females who are all conservatives? The answer is always the same - conservatives go with their values, not identity politics.

(For a further discussion see the 1/18/13 post "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats Are Driven By Issues."

As Predicted, It Will Never End

During the arguments over the gay marriage debate, I argued that the Left's ultimate goal would be the end of the terms and concepts of "man" and "woman," "male" and "female" - as we, and millennia before us, have always understood those terms.

The latest in this onslaught includes a bill signed by California Governor Jerry Brown, entitled the "Gender Recognition Act." Now, you have the option of not only choosing "F" or "M" on your driver's license - now you have the option of "non-binary." The option will also be available on birth certificates - although presumably the newborn baby will not be asked to make the choice. This new law takes effect on January 1, 2019.

It gets better. Pursuant to the provisions of yet another new law in California, it will be a criminal offense for health care workers to "willfully and repeatedly" fail to properly address a senior transgender patient's "preferred name or pronoun," so long as the health care worker was "clearly informed" of the patient's preference. The punishment? A possible fine and up to one year in jail.

So let me repeat - I do not believe that anyone should intentionally insult another person. However, I also do not believe that "name-calling," should be criminalized. Because that is what this law does. It is also yet another example of the tyranny of the Left - seeking total control over our words and deeds, and thoughts if they are able to find a way to get there. I am sure there are quite a few out there who believe in criminalizing offensive language. I do not. But the Democrats who run California clearly do.

Not to be outdone, the Daily Mail reports that the British are seeking an amendment to a UN treaty that protects a "pregnant woman." Now, the Brits are looking to change the language of the treaty to protect "pregnant people." Why? Are men now suddenly able to give birth? No, but the argument is that a transgender "man" can give birth. I'm sorry, but I thought the Democrats were always complaining that the Republicans were anti-science. Is that "pregnant person" giving birth from a uterus through a vagina? Do men have those body parts? By definition they do not. Which brings me back to my first point. Gay marriage was not simply about allowing people of the same sex to marry. Of necessity, and by design, it guaranteed a redefining of terms, of biology, of - if you will - science.

(For those interested, I previously addressed the issue of definitions of sex in my 7/20/14 post "My Ex-Wife," which was one of the most popular posts, as well as in the 10/19/14 post "My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters.")

Speech (Again) - Not Just a Legal Issue

It seems as if the issue of speech is constantly in the news. That, in turn, along with my strong support for speech, results in quite a few posts concerning the issue. Let's start by taking a look at the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, a 5-4 vote allowing unlimited corporate contributions in support of candidates or causes, so long as there was no affiliation or coordination with those candidates. The Democrats were so convinced that this unlimited spending - on speech - would be the downfall of our democracy. They were so worried, some had supported the rather drastic action of amending the First Amendment's right to speech. (See the 01/23/10 post discussing the Court's decision for further detail.)

In an article by attorney Floyd Abrams in the 10/17/17 Wall Street Journal, Mr. Abrams does acknowledge the involvement of "so-called super PACs" after the decision came down. But most of that money was not from corporations. From 01/01/15 through 12/31/16, Mr. Abrams tells us that only $85 million came from business corporations. $242 million came from unions and trade associations and nonprofits and others. But $1.04 billion came from individuals. (The top three were Thomas Steyer, over $89 million, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, over $77 million, and Donald S. Sussman, over $38 million. Michael Bloomberg was No. 10 at over $23 million, and George Soros was No. 19 at over $19 million.)

Meanwhile, corporate PACs, consisting of individual employees' money, gave under $1 million in the 2016 Presidential election. As Mr. Abrams points out, businesses generally do not want to get in the middle of political battles, potentially alienating half of their customer base. (Mr. Abrams participated in the oral argument of the case before the Court.) The fears of the Left about Citizens United simply did not materialize.

Now, however, the Attorney General of the US has gotten involved in the issue of speech on college campuses. AG Sessions recently announced a "national recommitment to free speech on campus." He apparently will have the Justice Department get involved in cases where speech rights are denied. In their 10/17/17 editorial, The Los Angeles Times seemed to get it right. First, they comment on the increasingly used argument that "racist or 'hate' speech is a form of violence and shouldn't be tolerated." Then, the Times discounts that argument by concluding "even racist speech, even hate speech, even repugnant ideas deserve protection, because once we say that free expression may be subordinated to other values, someone has to decide exactly which values justify censorship."

However, in the Times' initial editorial on the AG's new commitment (09/20/17 editorial) they were somewhat confused. The Times: "We worry that Sessions' embrace of free speech on campus - and his plan to deploy the Justice Department in vindicating it - might be designed to protect only conservative speech..." Really? If that is a danger, where are all the news stories about liberal speakers being shouted down by conservatives, or being uninvited to speak after accepting an invitation to do so?

That editorial was right, however, about one thing. Trump has often come down on the wrong side of free speech. When, as a candidate, he suggested a change in the libel laws making it easier to sue, he was wrong. When he suggested jail time or even loss of citizenship for flag burning (as odious as it is) he was wrong. When he told the NFL that they should fire those who kneel during the national anthem, he was wrong. The President of the United States should not be telling a private business who they should fire. If he had said that he, like many Americans, was offended by the kneeling and would not watch any more NFL games as long as the kneeling continues, that would have been fine. That is exactly what this writer and many others are doing this football season.

Ironically, while the New York Times hailed the kneelers as "patriots" in a recent editorial (see the 09/26/17 post), they seem not to have the same attitude towards the free speech rights of their own employees. Dean Baquet, Executive Editor, instructed his staff as follows: "In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinion, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times' journalistic reputation."

While this post is not about the journalistic integrity of the media, I could give Mr. Baquet a few suggestions that do not impede the paper's employees' free speech rights. (Yes, I know that as a private business they may set the standards for their employees as they see fit. But, Mr. Baquet's order is not what will fix the problem.) First, The Times should acknowledge their Left-wing bias. Second, they should acknowledge their anti-Israel bias (which does generally go along with a Left-wing bias). Third, they should insist that all their reporters and journalists be made aware of their own biases - and determine if they are willing and able to put those biases aside when reporting the news. Finally, the Op-Ed editors and writers should adopt a new standard for their own editorials - no more name calling, no more demagoguery, and no more using guest columnists to express opinions with which The Times agrees, but may be reluctant to express themselves. Here is just one example for editorials - no more referring to wars as Mr. Bush's war or Mr. Trump's war. When our troops are in the field fighting it is the United States of America's war. Clear?

I do not want to end this post before commenting on what may actually be the biggest threat to speech in our society. That threat usually emanates from the business world, when a company employee makes an impolite remark on air or in a written column or in a personal post on social media. Yes, private companies are not required to abide by First Amendment protections for their employees. But every time some employee slips up, intentionally or inadvertently, do we want to see that person lose their job, or even their career? I say no. I say we should all try to be more civil in our discourse - to one another and in discussing the issues of the day. But for those who fall short of that goal, I recommend some tolerance, lest we discourage people from freely speaking their minds.

What Makes a Jew?

While this post discusses Jews, I believe that the issues may be relevant to many religions, given the increasing influence of secularism and liberalism/leftism in American society. In a recent poll conducted at the request of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in August, 2017, 1000 Jews were asked to self-identify as to which "branch" of Judaism best defines them. 31% said Reform, 16% said Conservative (not to be confused with politically conservative), 9% said Orthodox, 2% Reconstructionist, with a plurality of 39% identifying as "just Jewish."

In a study by AISH cited in the September 17, 2017 Jewish Press, it was reported that 71% of non-orthodox Jews intermarry. How significant is that? In 1950 that percentage was only 6%, rising to 25% in 1974. Today, in our multicultural melting pot society, the numbers are out of control. However, for those who go to Israel on the Birthright program (see the 9/10/17 post) they are 51% more likely to marry a Jew than non-participants.

So, why would that be? Exposure to Israel and Jewish history and practice seems to infuse a greater sense of Jewish identity. Where else do we see that sense of Jewish identity? In orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, in general, seems to be the fastest growing branch of Judaism. And Chabad, in particular, seems to be the fastest growing part of orthodoxy. Having attended Chabad services with greater frequency over a number of years, I can say there is a distinct difference between Chabad and other denominations within Judaism.

In my past experience with Reform and Conservative synagogues, I recall many of the various Rabbis' sermons often focusing on current events - and often from a left-wing perspective. The Chabad Rabbis I have listened to infuse their sermons with Jewish history, tradition, Torah and G-d. The focus is on Jewish practice and traditions, traditions handed down from G-d to Moses and through thousands of years of Jewish history, with the idea of being a better person through Jewish practice. There is precious little discussion of politics or social issues, as with Reform Rabbis. There is, however, a discussion of doing good, and fulfilling our commandment from G-d to be a "light unto the nations." And, there is a strong expression of support for the Jewish homeland - the state of Israel. As a dear friend and reader put it, the Chabad Rabbis' sermons are filled substance and meaning and are inspirational; all the while relying on "Jewish history, experience and tradition" (to quote one of the Rabbis).

While support for Israel used to be more consistent among all the branches of Judaism, we know that over the last several decades support for Israel has waned in the more liberal/left leaning branches of Reform and Conservative Judaism. Christian friends and readers often express their disbelief to me when they hear or read about Jews who do not seem to support Israel.

In the above-referenced AJC poll, Jews were asked their view on moving the US embassy in Israel from its current location in Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. 44% did not favor moving the embassy, 36% said move the embassy when there is progress in the peace talks with the Palestinians, whereas only 16% said move the embassy immediately. 4% were undecided. Try to imagine any other country where Jews would say that the US embassy should not be in that country's capital city.

A columnist in this week's LA Jewish Journal wrote this: "A friend of nearly 25 years said to me: 'If you're going to defend Israel publicly, I'm not sure we can still be friends.'" She went on to describe "a rather rude awakening about where Israel stood in elite, leftist circles." She continued: "When I started to defend Israel, to provide facts, the spouses of two of my closest friends blocked me."

Since the days of ancient Israel, it has taken another 2000 years for Israel to exist again. Following the establishment of the modern state of Israel in May, 1948, Israelis have had to fight war after war, starting with the day after declaring their independence. It is a true miracle that the democratic and free state of Israel not only continues to exist, but thrives. That liberal/left-wing Jews are unable to support Israel - their historic homeland - is simply an indication of the extent to which their left-wing ideology has replaced Judaism.

I try to imagine all the excuses these left-wing Jews would make for other countries that are not perfect. No country, of course, is perfect, but apparently Israel has to be perfect in their eyes in order to gain the support of some Jews. According to the web site known as The Intercept, Bernie Sanders would consider voting to withhold US aid from Israel. I would guess that Sanders would identify as "just Jewish" in the AJC poll.

Who Cares About Symbols?

Following the lead of Colin Kaepernick from last season, an increasing number of NFL players were taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem during the first couple of games this season. Then, unnecessarily injecting himself into the controversy, President Trump said this: "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say 'get that son of a bitch off the field right now - he's fired.'"

The result was seen yesterday - an increasing number of players and even team owners taking a knee during and before the anthem. Some stayed in the locker room while the anthem was played. However, with all of his teammates staying in the locker room during the anthem, Pittsburgh Steeler Alejandro Villanueva stood at the end of the tunnel with his hand over his heart during the playing of the anthem. Then again, Villanueva is a former Army Ranger with three overseas tours in Afghanistan and a Bronze Star medal for valor.

But, Villanueva is not the patriot. No, per the New York Times, yesterday was "The Day the Real Patriots Took a Knee." Originally, those kneeling were basically supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, believing that cops go looking for blacks to kill. After all, Michael Brown put up his hands before he was shot in cold blood. Except, the actual evidence showed otherwise. Kaepernick were socks depicting cops as pigs. So what, we should all support him.

I'm trying to remember when conservatives took a knee or felt that they could not stand for the flag or the anthem. After Obama said he wanted to "fundamentally change" the best country on earth and then did his best to do so? Did not happen. Maybe I should refuse to stand given the way I was personally verbally assaulted just for having conservative views. (See last summer's post "A Personal Tale of Intolerance.") Would not happen. Given that there are more religious hate crimes against Jews than any other religious group in this country, perhaps I and all my fellow Jews should refuse to stand for the flag and the anthem. The country must hate us. No it does not. Nor does the country hate blacks.

But there is racism. There is anti-Semitism. Jonathan Pollard was kept in prison for spying far longer than others who committed a similar offense. Was it because of anti-Semitism, because he spied for our ally Israel? As a Jew who supports Israel, should I not stand for the flag and anthem? No one is disputing that people have the right to speech, and the right to protest. But just as our Constitution protects those rights, The Supreme Court has also ruled that government may place reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech and lawful protests. While I am not advocating for government mandated restrictions on taking a knee, I am arguing for some common decency and respecting a symbol that many hold dear, and yes - have fought and died for.

There seem to be precious few things that still unite us. Increasingly, however, our unifying symbols are now considered divisive. The Pledge of Allegiance - now offensive to some. The flag - too jingoistic. Too insulting to minorities who have been oppressed. Sports, ironically, could unite us. Ironic because half the audience roots for one team and half for the other. But, as fans, we understand that. And we understand that we are united in our love for the game. Now, that has been taken from us.

Recently, the Annenberg Public Policy Center conducted a poll. Astonishingly, only 26% of those polled could name all three branches of government. 33% were unable to name even one branch. And a shocking 37% could not name a single right given to us all by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Here's a unifying idea - let's bring back the teaching of civics and government to all of our schools. Or, is it more important to teach classes based on identity politics which further divides us.

Here's a final irony. I have been told by some that I inject politics into too many conversations. Yet, some of those same people have no problem with players injecting their politics into one of our national pastimes. Just saying...

Our Inadequate Constitution?

In a lead Op-Ed on the front page of Sunday's New York Times "Sunday Review" Vanderbilt University Law School professor Ganesh Sitaraman decries the Constitution's failure to address economic inequality. Said the professor: "Our Constitution was not built for a country with so much wealth concentrated at the very top nor for the threats that invariably accompany it: oligarchs and populist demagogues."

I trust that the professor has President Trump in mind with regards to both "oligarchs and populist demagogues." After all, Trump is a billionaire and a populist, and a demagogue to the Left. Just how big a factor was his wealth in his becoming President? Well, Hillary Clinton spent more money on the campaign than Trump did; just as Obama spent more than the billionaire Mitt Romney. And just as the billionaire Meg Whitman was unable to win the California governorship. And, of course, John Kerry, with a wife worth billions, was unable to win the Presidency.

For some reason, the professor thinks the English model is preferable, with a House of Lords and a House of Commons, with checks that "prevent oligarchy on the one hand and a tyranny founded on populist demagogy on the other." He continues: "Our founding charter doesn't have structural checks and balances between economic classes...this was a radical change in the history of constitutional government." Yes it was. Out of Europe's view on "class" differences, we got the likes of Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto." Communism turned out to be an ideology whose real world aftermath saw the deaths of tens of millions of people. And what has been the result of our "classless" society? A country that has produced the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people more than any other country in history.

The professor acknowledged that our Founders knew that the American people would not accept a class-based system of government. He does not discuss all of the checks and balances the Founders put into the Constitution in order to prevent unchecked power by any person or branch of government. The House, with elections every two years, reflects current political sentiments. The Senate, being staggered with one-third of the Senators up for election every two years, but holding office for six years, lends greater stability to the Congress. The President can veto legislation passed by a power-hungry Congress, just as the Congress, with a two-thirds vote, can override a Presidential veto.

Most shocking, perhaps, is the fact that by a 5-4 vote, with a single Supreme Court Justice making the difference, the Court can declare a law unconstitutional - even if passed unanimously by all 435 members of the House and all 100 Senators and signed by the President. And let's not forget the power of the House to Impeach and the power of the Senate to Convict and remove from office a sitting President.

What is really bugging this professor? He bemoans the wealth of the top one percent. He continues: "...our constitutional system might not survive in an unequal economy." Why would that be? "Campaign contributions, lobbying, the revolving door of industry insiders working in government, interest group influence over regulators and even think tanks...skew policy making to favor the wealthy and entrenched economic interests." Citing Gouverneur Morris from 1787, the professor says "The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest."

The professor then speaks admiringly of the early twentieth century Progressive movement, whose reforms "would tame the great concentrations of power of wealth and power that were corrupting government." If much of the professor's reasoning sounds to you like left-wing talking points, you would be correct. It is not that the Progressives enacted no positive policies. They did, such as the direct election of Senators and women's right to vote. But it was a mixed bag to say the least, with the beginnings of the expansion of the Federal government - accelerating the growth of the Federal leviathan. As one example, the Progressives gave us the Federal income tax.

I always find it helpful to know something of the background of the authors of Op-Ed pieces. Mr. Sitaraman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. As the name suggests, the Center is, indeed, a progressive left-wing organization. And, from the professor's website, we learn that "he served as Policy Director to Elizabeth Warren during her successful Senate campaign, and then as her Senior Counsel in the United States Senate."

I, for one, do not want to see a Constitutional system that enshrines income equality, nor one that dictates how much a person may earn, nor how much wealth someone may accumulate. Elizabeth Warren may deny that she is a socialist, but her statements often suggest otherwise. And her former aid, Professor Sitaraman, argues for what seems to be a Constitutionally mandated socialist society. To which I would reply: "No thank you."